Jump to content

Talk:Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Article moving

I have removed the article to its originary place, since it was moved by Irishpunktom without searching to previously build a consensus for the move. Aldux 17:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I just moved it back to it's original title. -- Karl Meier 08:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It was moved per the discussions in the Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn page, which both of you have read. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of this page duplicates content from Dhul-Qarnayn. I will remove the Quranic excerpts and put a link to the Dhul-Qarnayn page.--Thomas Arelatensis 00:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Paranthetical specification in the absence of disambiguization is POV. See similar discussion on Bushism which the concensus was to move to from Bushism (term). Masterdebater 07:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "(Theory)" should be removed from the title, as its sole purpose is to push a POV. I'll go further to say that there is no precedent or guideline for qualifying the subject of an article in its title, and to set such a precedent would be a mistake of the slippery-slope variety. Melchoir 07:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. The "(Theory)", was imposed by a single editor highly hostile to the whole argument without even trying to reach a consensus. Aldux 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Theological controversy

The last section is a mess, conveys the (false !) impression that medieval muslims consensually held the Earth to be flat (for a clear counter-example see excerpts from Idrisi in the talk:Dhul-Qarnayn page), and has no source except a link to a strongly anti-Islam website (check by yourself). If someone wants to clean it up, by all means feel free to do so...

Update: well, actually I did it myself :) --Thomas Arelatensis 19:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


The historical personality of Alexander the Great was co-opted by the legendary traditions of both Judaism and Christianity, which chose to portray Alexander as "the Believing King" — a devout monotheist. It was in this Judeo-Christian context that the legends of Alexander the Great reached the Arabian Peninsula. Thus, it is not difficult to understand how the pagan Alexander may have ended in the Qur'an's list of Islamic Prophets

Huh? Is this trying to imply that the Arabs heard about Alexander the Great through Jews or Christians, and assumed that he was Dhul-Qarnayn? Or is it trying to explain why Alexander is considered to be a prophet in the first place? Also, this is theorised by a scholar(s) not wikipedians, correct? Stoa 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be stated that there is no way to establish without a doubt that Dhul-Qarnayn is referring to Alexander the Great. It is merely the opinion of some Muslim scholars, albeit some prominent ones, that this was the case. But I don't know if greats such as Abu Hamid al-Ghazali said that this figure in the Qur'an was Alexander. This article first seems to try to convince that the Qur'an is in fact referring to Alexander, but then is factually incorrect by religiously co-opting Alexander, as the Jews and Christians did. In fact, it is possible that Dhul-Qarnayn is someone else altogether. But this doesn't seem to be emphasized.

Hi, reply to both: What the article says is that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn is basically an excerpt from the pre-existing Alexander Romance. This is not so much a theological controversy as a matter of philology: we have texts concerning the "enclosing" of Gog and Magog by Alexander which pre-date the Quran, and we can trace the genesis of this legend from the times of Josephus. Apparently, what happened is this: the jewish scholars knew about those stories of Alexander, who by that time had been assimilated into the judeo-christian folklore as a faithful king (he appears several times in the Talmud). So they asked Muhammad whether he knew about these stories (in order to test his knowledge of past heroes) - and as it turned out, he did. --Thomas Arelatensis 13:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Article is too long...

There is no need for the point by point comparison. Only a few broad examples would suffice --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 12:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirbytime, you should consider that the Qur'an contains only 16 verses (sentences) about Dhul-Qarnayn. The purpose of the point-by-point comparison is to establish the "matter of philology" mentioned by Thomas Arelatensis above. 99.242.17.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC).


Another Reson that Alexander couldn't be Dhul Qarnyan

The Sceptics of Alexander being the Master of two horns, say that he can't be it because of his sexual orientation.

In lesson 47, page 217, Paragraph 3 of the main lesson, sentence 2, in the published textbook: What Islam is all About, published by Noorart Inc. it clearly states:

"Some [Muslim Scholars] say it was Alexander the Great, who lived from 356 BCE to 323 BCE, but that is highly unlikely, given that Alexander was an idol-worshipper and a known homosexual."

I think that should be added.--Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 17:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you still don't believe that Alexander was a Sodomist, here is your proof--Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't he be both an idol-worshipper, a homosexual, AND Dhul Qarnyan? Personally I am convinced that Jesus was homosexual, although it's just a belief. Maybe the writer(s) of the Qur'an thought that Dhul Qarnyan was someone else, or didn't know that he had traits that might be contrary to their teachings. Modern Holywood interpretations of Merlin the wizard bears little resemblance to the (propably) historical Myrddin Wyllt, but it is widely acknowledged that Merlin is largely based on him. After all, Alexander died a considerable number of years before the Qur'an was written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.236.204 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn Cannot Be Alexander the Great?

It seems that the main point of the article is missed by some critiques. The article argues that what is being said of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Qur'an is very similar to Alexander the Great, not as a historical person, but as depicted in the Alexander Romance, and that the content of this romance was widely known in the Midle East at the time of the Qur'an. Therefore, the material in the Qur'an was probably inspired by this romance. The fact that the historical Alexander was an idolatrist and homosexual does not count as a reason against this argument because Alexander was not known this way in the Middle East at the time of the Qur'an. Unless, of course, one assumes the historical inerrancy of the Qur'an. Bahhasg (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Statements about the word "balagha"

In the section In the Quran it is stated, "Modern scholars such as Dr. Zaghlool Al-Najjar agree now that the word "balagha" does not literally mean that Alexander came to the setting of the sun.[citation needed] In Arabic the word "balagha" is commonly used in reference to anything in the sky above to indicate time of day."

Of course, most muslim scholars agree on this claim, but this is not true of non-muslims scholars (see for example [1]).

As for the common usage for "anything in the sky above to indicate time of day.", I have never read an apologist use that argument and Lane's authoritative lexicon of classical arabic (Edward William Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon) gives no such indication.

In the following sentences, statements are made about other arabic words without stating which English words are being referred to (balagha = he reached, taghrubu = setting, aayn = spring). The statement about it being most likely a reference to the "Black Drin" is contentious and needs citation. I added a citation needed tag for the first sentence, but could have done so for the rest of the statements in the paragraph. I would have done this and added the above clarifications myself, but frankly, the whole paragraph is misleading and needs deleting or replacing with something more balanced. Do people agree?

  1. ^ Van Bladel, Kevin (2007), "The Alexander legend in the Qu'ran 18:83-102", in Gabriel Said Reynolds (ed.), The Qurʼān in Its Historical Context, Routledge, pp. 175–203

available online at google books The Qurʼān in Its Historical Context‎

Gamma737 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no citations were given for the claim at all, I have removed it. - 99.242.17.45 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotefarm

It has been suggested that this article contains too many quotations for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it is true. On the other hand, this is an obscure literary subject and it's not at all clear how we can convey the important philological comparison between the Alexander romance and the Qur'an without the quotations. As such, I have taken the liberty of removing the "quotefarm" warning that has been in place here since March 2008 .... it does not seem to help and it is an eyesore. BUT I do think that there should be some discussion about how to deal with the issue of extensive quotations .. Maybe finding a way to use WikiQuote. -- Semaphoris (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ibid

"Ibid" and the likes should never be used in Wikipedia articles. It's confusing to those not familiar with the terminology and it's very likely to throw the whole system of notes into confusion if someone inserts a different source before it.

Peter Isotalo 12:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. In this case it wasn't too bad as every usage of ibid included the author name and year but it's still not a good idea to use it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article moving

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC) I have removed the article to its originary place, since it was moved by Irishpunktom without searching to previously build a consensus for the move. Aldux 17:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I just moved it back to it's original title. -- Karl Meier 08:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It was moved per the discussions in the Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn page, which both of you have read. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of this page duplicates content from Dhul-Qarnayn. I will remove the Quranic excerpts and put a link to the Dhul-Qarnayn page.--Thomas Arelatensis 00:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Paranthetical specification in the absence of disambiguization is POV. See similar discussion on Bushism which the concensus was to move to from Bushism (term). Masterdebater 07:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "(Theory)" should be removed from the title, as its sole purpose is to push a POV. I'll go further to say that there is no precedent or guideline for qualifying the subject of an article in its title, and to set such a precedent would be a mistake of the slippery-slope variety. Melchoir 07:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. The "(Theory)", was imposed by a single editor highly hostile to the whole argument without even trying to reach a consensus. Aldux 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Ethiopian version of the Alexander legend

A couple of places to start would include Edward Ullendorff's The Ethiopians, which has a chapter on Ge'ez/Ethiopian literature. The story itself has been translated by E.A. Wallis Budge, The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great (London, 1896), but the problem is that Wallis Budge is notoriously sloppy & any commentary he provides needs to be handled with extreme care, used only after verifying it against other authorities -- or, perhaps best of all, simply ignored. If I find some more information, I'll add it here. -- llywrch (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Who is the anti-Islamist who wrote this artice? Its so anti-Islamic its ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.187.96 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific arguments or just general a disagreement with everything presented here? -- Semaphoris (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Its very anti-Islamic. Like when the article talks about th two horned on from the book of Daniel, its obviously talking about Cyrus the great, not Alexander. I think you should also emphasize that the syriac texts the article is talking about is written AFTER the Quran. There are no texts before the Quran having every element of the Quranic account. Also, the base of this article seems like getting its sources from periods after the Quran, mainly the mid-evil era. And I think you should add that a group of Jews Asked Muhammed peace be upon him these questions, so you would have to look at the old testament to look at who was this "two horned one" which is said one time in the old testament , which is talking about Cyrus the great. And tis is about Alexander in the Quran, please take out th sleepers of the cave or make a new article. It seems like this article is taking a one sided approach. You you should also add western shcolars comments on how it is not Alxander in the Quran. Gero writes: Several features of the text [i.e., the Christian Legend] also occur in the Koranic narrative - the famous horns of Alexander, the journey to the west and then to the east, and of course the central theme of the gate, which will be opened at an apocalyptic Endzeit by divine command. But although this has been proposed by Nöldeke and often repeated since, the work also does not qualify as a direct source for the 'two-horned' Alexander of the Koran, at least not in its present form; recent investigations indicate an ex eventu knowledge of the Khazar invasion of Armenia in A.D. 629.

The prose legend (neshânâ) was then in turn the literary source of the Syriac metrical homily discourse attributed to Jacob of Sarug (sixth century) in the manuscripts. The poem, however, was actually written in the seventh century, shortly before the Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia and Palestine. S. Gero, "The Legend Of Alexander The Great In The Christian Orient", Bulletin Of The John Rylands University Library Of Manchester, 1993, Volume 75, p. 7.

And what Wheeler says: .....it is preferable to uncover how and to what end the commentaries make use of elements of these earlier stories in their interpretation of Q 18:60-102. By interpreting Q 18:60-102 in light of these extra-Qur'anic stories, the commentators are able to show how Islam includes earlier stories and revelations. This approach, on the one hand, allows the commentaries to contend that these earlier stories are part of the revelation included in the Qur'an. On the other hand, the commentaries are in a position to claim that their interpretations of the Qur'an are necessary in order to understand the rich and comprehensive character of what would otherwise be enigmatic passages. Keeping in mind the distinction between Q 18:60-102 and the commentaries on these verses, it is possible to begin to uncover not the sources for the Qur'an, but the sources to which the commentaries make allusions in their interpretations of the Qur'an. 

B. M. Wheeler, "Moses Or Alexander? Early Islamic Exegesis Of Qur'an 18:60-65", Journal Of Near Eastern Studies p.208  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.239.136.23 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


ha ha ha. I wonder how these wikipedia guys always end up understanding stuff upside down.

Is The Source Of Qur'an 18:60-65 The Alexander Romances? http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBalex.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.9.53 (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


On The Sources Of The Qur'anic Dhul-Qarnayn ? http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBhorned.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.9.53 (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested proposal

The lead of the article says that Alexander the Great being Dhul Qarnayn is conjecture. Doesn't this conflict with WP:Notability policy? If so, shouldn't this article be deleted or shortened? Btw, another article says Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an is the real Dhul Qarnayn. Someone65 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

~~ Wholsesale deletion of this article is out of the question. Cyrus the great should be deleted. The word "conjecture" should be replaced, perhaps with "theory." Please suggest an alternative wording or article title name if you can.

Dodgy ref

Edwards, Rebecca (2002). "Two Horns, Three Religions. How Alexander the Great ended up in the Quran". American Philological Association, 133rd Annual Meeting Program (Philadelphia, 5 January 2002) 36, under Reception of Classical Literature, No. 5. Retrieved 13 March 2010. is a conference abstract, as as such isn't a RS William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

~~ The paper was not published in a journal. It was presented at the annual meeting of the APA and can be read online. If you can suggest a way to improve the citation please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.106.191 (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable reference tag

Why is this reference unreliable:

Esposito, John L., ed. "Alexander the Great". The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Oxford Islamic Studies Online. Retrieved 13 March 2010.

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.106.191 (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A fair question William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article seem to reference itself?

"Alexander the Great in the Qur'an" is not the title of a known book or essay. Yet it is printed in bold at the top of this article. Wouldn't it just be better to begin: "They are theories that Alexander the Great appears in the Qur'an"? 92.20.145.18 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexander was himself a barbarian responsible for destroying several civilizations and "the Great" was attached only in 1700-1900 as a result of European colonialism. How can he be the wall between Gog and Magog demons? Also he existed more than a millennium before Islam arrived in Arabia. Alexander didn't invade Arabia as he had in mind the riches of India. However his soldiers were too exhausted to move further after an unsuccessful campaign in India and hence returned to Macedonia. Perhaps this article would not have existed if Alexander would have invaded Arabia. This article simply tries to establish links between Alexander and other prophets/prophesies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccacount (talk • contribs) 07:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 

           -1) Alexander was known as "Alexandros Megas" in classical antiquity. 2) Islam did not arrive in Arabia, it was conceived in Arabia.  3)  It is irrelevant how long before the advent of Islam Alexander lived; All of the prophets in the Old Testament existed (if they ever actually lived) a millennium or more before Alexander and are freely referred to in the Qu'ran.  4) If Alexander is a "arbarian responsible for destroying several civilizations"  What does that make Abu Bakr (the 1st Caliph), who invaded Sassanid Persia and brought down a millennia old civilization that had more or less survived Alexander's conquest intact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.77.90 (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What about this? Alexander was a barbarian responsible for destroying several civilizations and "the Great" was attached only in 1700-1900 as a result of European colonialism. How can he be the wall between Gog and Magog demons? Also he existed more than a millennium before Islam arrived in Arabia. Alexander didn't invade Arabia as he had in mind the riches of India. However his soldiers were too exhausted to move further after an unsuccessful campaign in India and hence returned to Macedonia. Perhaps this article would not have existed if Alexander would have invaded Arabia. This article simply tries to establish links between Alexander and other prophets/prophesies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccacount (talk • contribs) 07:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Cosmology

" It was also thought that rainfall was due a third ocean above the "canopy of the sky." "

Is this really true? I find it hard to believe that any people missed the connection between clouds and rain... 98.194.35.233 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to find a source saying that this was a belief in the ancient Greek Mythology regarding Oceanus. However, the Alexander romance legends found in the Qur'an appear to have been written in Syriac Christian legend from around the 6th century AD. The Wikipedia article on the Firmament:According to Genesis, God created the firmament to separate the "waters above" (the source of rain) from those below (in the underworld). According to another website, 6th century AD Christian monks in Egypt had the following idea: "Envisioned in this pre-scientific account is a flat terrestrial plain over which is erected the great crystalline firmament or the dome of the sky. Water not only partially covered the earth but also formed a vast reservoir above the dome. And why not? This model accounted nicely for rainfall and explained why the sky is blue-the colour of pure water." -- DesertAnt (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
In Genesis the water is divided into the water above and below the vault. I'm not sure about rainfall though.Gamma737 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great in Intro

I noticed that someone had removed parts of the introduction talking about the Syriac manuscripts and replaced it with a lengthy explanation of contemporary Muslim scholars who are forwarding the theory that Dhul Qarnayn is Cyrus the Great. This article is not about the (dubious) theory regarding Cyrus the Great. This article is about the facts supporting the case for identifying the story of Dhul Qarnayn with similar legend regarding Alexander the Great found in ancient, Christian Syriac writings, and providing other evidence to support the identification with Alexander.

So I have added back the text that was removed. I have left a small mention about the Cyrus the Great theory in the introduction, as a compromise.

Muslim apologists editing this article should understand very clearly that this article will not be hijacked or turn into a debate about Cyrus the Great ... In modern times, when people realized that Alexander the Great could not be compatible with Islam, Muslim have started denying that the story has anything to do with the Alexander legends and instead they are promoting the idea that Dhul Qarnayn is Cyrus the Great. These Muslims are entitled to their opinion, and they have a whole Wikipedia article where they can go promote their apologetics (see Cyrus the Great in the Quran), but THIS article here is a scholarly and encyclopaedic source of information regarding the Alexander the Great in the Quran - NOT Cyrus the Great or any of the other alternatives that Muslims promote these days. -- DesertAnt (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Verification of Source Needed:

Could someone with access the the following source please verify these claims that were added to this article:

some early Muslim scholars saw it as a reference to a pre-Islamic monarch from Persia or south Arabia.[1]

The mystic Ibn Arabi (d. 638⁄1240) allegorically interpreted the figure of Dhul-Qarnayn as the heart which controls the left and right sides of the body.[1]

SOURCE: Renard, John (2001). "Alexander". Encyclopedia of the Quran. 1 (1st ed.). Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 61-62. ISBN 9004114653.

I am very interested in any information about early Muslim scholars who denied the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great and suggested alternative identifications. Apparently the entry on "Alexander" in the "Encyclopedia of the Quran" (Brill Academic Publishers) says that there were such early scholar. The theory apparently proposed by the mystic Ibn Arabi is also interesting - if someone could verify the source, that would be much appreciated. Unfortunately I do not have easy access to this source and it costs $1,859 (!) to purchase it from the publisher.

For those who are interested - assuming that the claim about Ibn Arabi is true, it presents an interesting dilemma for Islamic apologists. Apparently, Ibn Arabi claimed that Dhul Qarnayn was an allegory for the human heart' "which controls the left and right sides of the body," which must be a reference to the story about Dhul Qarnayn travelling to the western and eastern "extremities" of the Earth. Prior to modern knowledge regarding human biology, people believed that the heart was the source of human thoughts, actions and all other cognitive functions (not the brain, as we now believe). This is why the heart is a symbol for love, for example. People concluded that the cognitive functions are controlled by the heart because (a) they had no idea what the actual purpose of the heart is, and (b) they could tell from common experience that their heart would beat faster when they were afraid, excited or aroused - so they incorrectly concluded that the heart performs the functions that we now attribute to the human brain. SO, it seems that the apologists have replaced one logical fallacy with another. I thought somebody might find this amusing / interesting. DesertAnt (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The pre-Islamic monach from South Arabia was a Himyarite (modern Yemen). You can search for Tubba and Himyar in this article which has useful references http://quranspotlight.wordpress.com/articles/dhul-qarnayn-sunset-sunrise/ Gamma737 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
For an incomplete summary of theories held by early Muslim historians and exegates, see al-Biruni's book al-ʾāthār al-bāqiya, which is also available in English translation. Al-Biruni lists a number of different Mesopotamian and South Arabian monarchs who were either known by the epithet "Dhu al-Qarnayn" or have been linked to legends similar to the ones described in the Qur'an. Al-Biruni then mentions two arguments supporting the identification of Dhu al-Qarnayn with a monarch from the Himyarite dynasty. These theories are generally attributed to earlier historians than al-Biruni, like Ibn Abbas or Ibn Duraid. If you're looking for those who more explicitly discussed (and rejected) the Alexander hypothesis, see the famous works of Ibn Kathir, Abu al-Fida', Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and others, all available online. Wiqi(55) 15:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Renard, John (2001). "Alexander". Encyclopedia of the Quran. Vol. 1 (1st ed.). Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 61–62. ISBN 9004114653.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=18&tAyahNo=83&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageID=2
    Triggered by \baltafsir\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Merge with Dul-Qarnayn

This article should be merged with Dhul-Qarnayn: as it stands, it's a fork.PiCo (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the process has been started. I've notified users who appear on talk pages since 2013 - neither page is very active.

  • Comment As the one who proposed the merge I'll kick off. I don't know the history of the two articles from their inception, but there was evidently a rather heated discussion on the merge question back in 2005, which resulted in a decision not to do so. (The discussion is at the head of this talk page and at archive 1 of the Dhul-Qarnayn talk page). Nevertheless, I believe the question is worth raising again. The two contain the same material, even if in different words. The Dhul-Qarnayn article sets out the text of the Quranic tale of Dhul-Qarnayn, discusses the origin of the story in the Alexander Romance, and touches on Dhul-Qarnayn in later tradition. The Alexander-in-the-Quran article covers much the same material - it's longer but not so well sourced, but I'm sure that can be overcome. In short, I can see persuasive reasons for a merge, and can't think of any benefits from keeping both like this. (Please, if you want to reply directly to anything I've said here, indent under my comment; if you want to make your own comment, put a star and bold heading).PiCo (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems likely that there would be very considerable opposition from some people against expanding the brief existing section about Alexander on the Dhu'l Qarnayn page and putting there the much more detailed evidence found here (a longer browse of the talk page and Archive 1 talk on the DQ page is enough to convince me of this). Some might also complain that the DQ and Alexander articles are merged, while the Cyrus article remains separate (as happened in the D-Q talk), though merging the Cyrus article too would clearly be disproportionate. Finally, I wonder what would be lost from this page in the process of merging and subsequent opposition. I have seen that the information on this page is of significant interest to those who are aware of and engage in the controversy (it is quite often linked by people). In short, my main fear is that even if it gains some degree of consensus, a new merger would result in significant watering down and loss of information as the purpose of the page is no longer just about the inspiration / lineage of the Dhu'l Qarnayn story, and / or an incredibly long article incorporating the full Cyrus page and other theories for "balance". Gamma737 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've just read the interesting notice above: This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Dhul-Qarnayn, due to size or style considerations. This article is however longer than the Dhul-Qarnayn one today. —PaleoNeonate – 08:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the lack of debate I'll let this lapse. PiCo (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I readded the tags, have tagged the articles for WikiProjects, as the discussion did not yet last 30 days. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This is for UncleKasra, who left this message on my personal talk page - as it concerns article content it's more appropriately placed here: Hi. You have repeatedly reverted one of my edits to the intro of the article without any explanation. The problem with the intro is that it's almost entirely taken from one scholar's point of view, but presented as fact and as the result of scholarly consensus. I'm just trying to make sure that is clarified, and I've added a sentence to unpack how theistic and non-theistic views of the Qur'an's origins can clash. One can't just provide one point of view and expect the footnotes to clarify that. The sentence structure itself should be clear. I didn't want to start edit-warring, but this has to be resolved here instead of reverted without any explanation.

First, regarding the charge that I reverted edits without any explanation, I quite clearly (or I hope clearly) said in the edit summary that I was reverting because the source used was not reliable - it's an online website, but for academic articles the reliable sources are books and articles by qualified academics.

Reliable sources such as Wheeler do underlie that web-article and can be considered, but even if you had quoted Wheeler I would have reverted, because Wheeler does not support the argument you wish to make. That argument (or point), as I understand, is that Wheeler supports the idea that Allah revealed the Quran to Mohammad. He does not. Nowhere in any of his books and articles does he say this, and you're welcome to look (I'll provide links to some of his works in a moment).

You also say that the current statement in the article to the effect that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn entered the Quran through the legendary material that grew up around Alexander the Great is not the scholarly consensus. It is. I've looked at a great many books by scholars on this subject, and every one of them says either that the Dhul-Qarnayn story is based on the ALexander legends, or that Dhul-Qarnayn is most often taken to be Alexander (which implies reliance on the Alexander legends). Wheeler is one of these.

If you can produce one or more reliable sources (meaning scholars, and fairly recent ones) who say that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn came to the Quran by divine revelation, or that it is not based on ALexander, I'll reconsider.PiCo (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent lede reverts

We should retain at least some aspects of the long-standing lede. Also, attempts to hide all doubt and disagreement about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn is not inline with WP:NPOV nor with modern scholarship. Recent scholarly works still refer to Dhu al-Qarnayn as a "mysterious character", which is only "identified with Alexander". An example from 2016,

... exegetic activity revolving around the the mysterious character of Dhū al-Qarnayn (“The Two-Horned”), mentioned in a Qurʾanic sūra (Q 18: 83–97). According to one interpretation, ultimately accepted as authoritative, Dhū al-Qarnayn is identified with Alexander the Greek -- l-Iskandar al-Rūmī -- ... ([1], p. 211, Brill)

In other words, we must capture how reliable sources introduce and summarize the subject. Wiqi(55) 02:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring to add the weasel word "some" at the lead has to stop, per WP:OR and WP:WEASELWORDS. I removed it yet again and I expect discussion, not reverts per WP:BRD. Also, avoid sloppy accusations that anyone is trying to "hide" anything. This is just nonsense and it violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA. All I am trying to do is remove the weasel word. Dr. K. 06:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Please look at the history of the article before accusing anyone of edit warring. The long-standing lede (since late 2012) always presented doubt in the first sentence. Here is the version that was stable for many years before Pico's edit warring: [2], notice the use of "may be". The same applies for deleting the second paragraph, which is also found in the stable version. Since you claim to be familiar with policies, you should also know that the article must fairly reflect other views to not end up as a WP:CFORK. Wiqi(55) 17:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


The deleted para

This is the deleted para:

Traditional and modern scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great,[1] but others disagreed.[2][3] A few early Muslim scholars saw it as a reference to a pre-Islamic monarch from Persia or south Arabia.[1] It has also been a matter of theological controversy amongst Muslim scholars since early times. In more recent times, some Muslim scholars have suggested other alternatives, for example that Dhul-Qarnayn may be Cyrus the Great instead of Alexander the Great.[4] There have been many different cultural depictions of Alexander the Great since antiquity. Similarities between the Quran and the Alexander romance were also identified in recent research based on the translation of certain medieval Syriac manuscripts.

This is why it doesn't belong in the lead:

  • The article is titled Alexander the Great in the Quran. It should be about the reasons that led scholars to identify AG with certain passages in the Quran. It is not about why these ideas are totally mistaken.
  • "Traditional and modern scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great.." No they haven't - that's not what "endorsed" means. What they've done is identified DQ as AG. This is the scholarly consensus, and there are plenty of sources - Wheeler for one.
  • "...but others disagreed." Sure, and some have disagreed with the idea that the Earth is round. Our job is to (a) find where the weight of scholarly opinion lies, and then (b) represent all significant opinions,signifying their importance. So far as I can tell, the weight of opinion behind AG=DQ is so great that anything else is fringe (notably the idea that DQ is "really" Cyrus the Great).
  • ...followed by two sources, one of them dating from 1927 (really?) and the other, so far as I can tell, not disagreeing with the DQ=AG consensus (if I'm wrong please provide a quote - and the author of the second one, an article titled "A Hero Without Borders: Alexander the Great in the Medieval Persian Tradition", is Faustina C.W. Doufikar-Aerts, not Julia Rubanovich).
  • "In an attempt to settle chronological discrepancies, medieval exegetes and historians suggested the existence of two Dhū al-Qarnayns: Dhū al-Qarnayn al-Akbar (the elder Dhū al-Qarnayn) and Dhū al-Qarnayn al-Aṣghar (the younger Dhū al-Qarnayn). The former is the one mentioned in the Qurʾān; he lived after the Prophet Ṣāliḥ and before the Prophet Ibrāhīm (Abraham) and is famous for erecting the Wall against Gog and Magog. The latter is identified with Iskandar-i Rūmī, who conquered Iran and whose counsellor was Aristotle." This quote is irrelevant - chronological discrepancies? Where does the DQ story in the Quran give any chronological information? A real wall against a real Gog and Magog? A real Abraham? All very well for medieval exegetes, but in terms of modern scholarship it's lunacy.
  • "It has also been a matter of theological controversy amongst Muslim scholars since early times. In more recent times, some Muslim scholars have suggested other alternatives, for example that Dhul-Qarnayn may be Cyrus the Great instead of Alexander the Great." We're not interested in theology. Nor in Persian nationalism.
  • "There have been many different cultural depictions of Alexander the Great since antiquity. Similarities between the Quran and the Alexander romance were also identified in recent research based on the translation of certain medieval Syriac manuscripts. This is close to meaningless.

So, the article, and the lead, have to focus on the ties between Alexander the Great and the stories in the Quran, and they have to avoid theological speculation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Your comments sound persuasive to me. I agree. Dr. K. 09:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The lede shouldn't ignore other views per WP:NPOV. While you assert that the scholarly consensus equates Dhu al-Qarnayn with Alexander, Brill's latest collection describes Dhu al-Qarnayn as a "mysterious character".[3] Clearly the link between the two is a matter of interpretation. Otherwise, we need sources that explicitly refer to the scholarly consensus, not your original research. Also, where did Wheeler claim anything about it? (quote him please) I doubt that a scholarly consensus will emerge, since recent scholarship moved on to the development of individual motifs, not the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn. The identify issue remains an old debate largely dominated by medieval historians and 19th-century orientalists (which is why I believe the widely-cited Anderson's paper is informative here). We can't label any of these views "fringe", as reliable sources still refer to them even in short articles. And a minor correction to what you said above: A Hero Without Borders is the title of multiple chapters in an edited collection. The article I correctly cited and linked is ch.8 by Julia Rubanovich ("Persian Tradition"), not ch.7 by Doufikar-Aerts. Wiqi(55) 21:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference EQ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Anderson, Andrew Runni (1927). "Alexander's Horns". Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. 58: 100–122. doi:10.2307/282906. ISSN 0065-9711. JSTOR 282906. Many scholars have denied the identity of Dulcarnain and Alexander.
  3. ^ Rubanovich, Julia (2016). "A Hero Without Borders: Alexander the Great in the Medieval Persian Tradition". Fictional Storytelling in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond. BRILL. pp. 210–233. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |qoute= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Ma'arefat Al-Maad – Ma'ad Shanasi, موقع المتقين.
I am not someone familiar with the scholarship on the topic but I've reverted the edit again because of it's horribly non-encyclopedic language. "See my expose" for example - this is Wikipedia, not a blog.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi], you talk about "attempts to hide all doubt and disagreement about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn", but this isn't about the identity of a fictional character, it's about how this story got into the Quran. The unanimous view among scholars is that Qarnayn is to be identified with Alexander, but obviously not with the historical Alexander, who built no walls and never reached the ends of the Earth - he's fictional. I get the impression that you think Allah dictated the story to Mohammed and that therefore it cannot have entered the Quran from a merely human source. We have two editors Wallingford and DrK, telling you to leave this alone, and yet you persist. PiCo (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we have no evidence that the Syriac Legend existed in the milieu of the Quran, hence whether it entered or not is still a matter of historical speculation. Moreover, the disputes about the dating of the Syriac Legend (reaching centuries after the Quran) and its late manuscript tradition isn't helping. Some have suggested alternative sources, like Arabic or Hebrew oral accounts. Incidentally, the academics who accept the Cyrus or Sa'b accounts also have textual and archeological evidence supporting their views. Now since you keep asking for my personal views, I wouldn't mind adding Alexander to the list of pre-Islamic figures mentioned in the Quran. Wiqi(55) 01:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Wiqi(55), "[t]he lede shouldn't ignore other views per WP:NPOV". The older version was much better.
  • "It should be about the reasons that led scholars to identify AG with certain passages in the Quran. It is not about why these ideas are totally mistaken." — Since the same user references the flat Earth theory, I'll ask why such a method wasn't applied to the article Flat Earth, which includes the sentence: "Despite the scientific fact of Earth's sphericity, pseudoscientific flat Earth conspiracy theories are espoused..."? According to the user's logic, this should also be removed. Additionally, Dhu-al-Qarnayn's identity is a much more controversial topic than the Earth's shape.
  • "... This is the scholarly consensus, and there are plenty of sources... Sure, and some have disagreed with the idea that the Earth is round..." — I have read literally a dozen modern commentaries which reject this idea, three of which were included in a previous revision.
  • "We're not interested in ... Persian nationalism." — Except that the Cyrus the Great as Dhul-Qarnayn theory was first proposed and researched by the Indian scholar Abul Kalam Azad as referenced by Iran's Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi in his commentary.
— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC

There is no consensus in this RfC.

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lede contain a statement that Alexander the Great features in the Quran as dhul-Qarnayn and that he entered it through various legends current in the Middle East? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC). PiCo (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Uhm just quick: I really don't know what this is about. I started the discussion (which was about Gerö and Wheeler) because I wanted them both mentioned as sources in the wiki article, plus the sources for the Khidr-narrative. Nothing else. --Mikka85 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. The first part of the question is related to the title. However, it'd better be stated as "Alexander the Great is allegedly featured in the Quran as Dhul-Qarnayn", because the direct connection between these two names is still debatable. The second part of the question should not be stated definitively, because there is no certain direct connection between the legends and the Quran (which is believed by Moslems only came through Muhammad), so words such as "hypothesized" or "purported" should be included. JohnThorne (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No (to Q1) – or at least, not in the way this confusingly worded Rfc has it. It appears that this entire article is about a legend, and so an unqualified statement that "Alexander the Great features in the Quran" in Wikipedia's voice can not be supported under our Verifiability policy. The lead sentence of the article in its current wording (as of rev 898498796) is a violation of Wikipedia's standards. (This also means that the title of this article is incorrect per WP:AT and requires a change, but that is a separate issue which should be brought up in a separate discussion.)
    Decline to vote (on Q2) – Q2 of the Rfc is dependent on Q1 and presupposes that Q1 is true and not a POVFORK, and thus indicates a malformed Rfc question. It should not be addressed until after the issue with Q1 is resolved. Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

See related issue at #Disputed title below. The Rfc can be decided independent of that, but users arriving here from WikiProjects are invited to participate below as well: in a way, the Rfc question is merely a subset of (or obviated by) the RM/Merge issue discussed below. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origins of the Quranic story of Dhul Qarnayn

I recently reverted this edit by Mikka85 with the explanation that he had misunderstood his sources:
However according to recent studies the current forms and manuscripts of the syriac- and greek recensions of the Alexander Legend, mentioning Gog & Magog including the Gate, suggest, that these do not "qualify as a direct source for the Quran"

Mikka85's first source is Stephen Gero's paper "The Legend of Alexander the Great in the Christian Orient", with two quotes cited:

  • "the work (Alexander Legend neshana) also does not qualify as a direct source for the 'two-horned' Alexander of the Koran [...] recent investigations indicate an ex eventu knowledge of the Khazar invasion of Armenia in A.D. 629" (page 7)
  • "In particular he [Dhul Qarnayn] is described there as shutting in the tribes of Yajuj wa- Majuj, the biblical Gog and Magog, by means of an iron gate or dam until the end of time, when they shall burst out of their captivity. Now, this episode is not found in the oldest form of the Greek Alexander romance; it was only interpolated, as we shall presently see, into later Byzantine medieval recensions of the text from elsewhere; that is, the Alexander romance stricte dictu cannot be considered as a source of the Koranic narrative." (page 6)

It's vital to note that Gero says: "It is well known that Alexander appears in the Koran (Sura 18) under the name of Dhu'l-Qarnain, the hero with the two horns" (page 6 - please use the page numbers on the pdf file, not those that appear in the browser counter). In other words, Gero is saying that Alexander came into the Quran through sources other than the oldest form of the Greek Aexander romance (the second quote) or the work called the Alexander Legend "neshana". This does not invalidate our article statement: "The story of Dhul-Qarnayn has its origins in legends of Alexander the Great current in the Middle East in the early years of the Christian era ... [which] ... went through much further elaboration in subsequent centuries before eventually finding its way into the Quran through a Syrian version."

Mikka85's second source is a book by Brannon Wheeler, "Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis", page 19. Wheeler's book, as the title indicates, is about the development of the figure of Moses in later Muslim commentary. The page Mikka indicates has a chart at the top of the page showing his theory of the sources of the Muslim commentaries, one of them being the Quran, but he makes clear that he's talking about the emergence of the commentaries, not of the Quran (see the highlighted text, "This "full" version of the story seems to emerge as the dominant explanation of Q 18:60-101 in Muslim exegesis as early as the eleventh century" - my bolds.)

For these reasons I reverted the edit to the introduction. There's another edit further down that I haven't looked at, but frankly I'm dubious of Mikka's ability to read academic texts thoroughly.PiCo (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Copying the text from my talk page: "What? No I'm not using different accounts. Mate really, with respect, Wheeler ibid p 19 supports exactly this, just look at the proposed theory (the simplistic drawing). He is stating that Q83-101 may very well developed differently then initially anticipated. Needless to say Gerö verifies the eclatant weekness in Nöldeke's "Pahlavi-origin"-theory by his own findings: The Gog & Magog-apocalyptic narrative interpolation in late byzantine recension, but absent in early recensios. I don't want to brag about this but this belongs in there mate, really. This comes from someone who, not counting ottoman-turkic literature, studies this. Entire paassages in Gerös work (esp. p.4-5 Memra and Neshana on Alexander and the Alexander romances comparison with Q83-101) are dedicated to this. It literally supports a new approach to the causa, which Wheeler further elaborates. I'm asking again, why was it reverted? I don't care for apologetic scholars or their approach, if this is what you fear (judging on what I saw on your talk page). What I care for are facts. And when these facts are there, they should be mentioned, otherwise the objectivity goes down the hill. By the way you even deleted the Rabbi Levi editation. This hole section esp. the Khidr-narrative uses quotes and sources from the 19th century, and some of these are long outdated and refuted/ re-worked ever since." Thank you for replying Pica. It is quite ironic that you accuse me of not reading through sources thoroughly, funny enough you are following my steps by (Quote:)"There's another edit further down that I haven't looked at". But lets head back to my sources: The chart in Wheelers theory DOES differentiate clearly between the Quranic narrative on the one hand and the Quranic COMMENTARIES on the other. On p 214 Wheeler states: "Q 18:60-82 is not necessarily derived from the Alexander stories. On the contrary, a more discerning examination of the different texts show that the later recensions of the Alexander stories are dependent upon the Qur'an as understood through the medium of early Muslim commentators. Key elements of the later stories, such as the appellation of "Dhu al-Qarnayn" attributed to Alexander owe their origins to the commentaries. A closer analysis of the commentaries on Q 18:60-82 shows the development of an increased association of Q 18:60-82 and 83-102 with Alexander stories. This recognition makes it possible to obtain a fresh understanding of the reconstruction of the history of the later recensions of the Alexander stories" And clearly, again(3rd time je sais), he differs between both, the commentary and the quranic narrative. One more thing to Gerö: If his conclusion is that Q83-101 are from the Alexander legend, but he expresses the existing discrepancies because the manuscripts according to Gerö himself "also do(es) not qualify as a direct source for the 'two-horned' Alexander of the Koran" then why can't we quote this? Shouldn't this be mentioned?Mikka85 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before under your other two user-names, and I don't see it advancing anywhere. I'll put in a request for RfC. (I indented your edit above to make this thread easier to follow).PiCo (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
My friend really, this is my only account, how many times should I repeat that. I don't know why someone would accuse me of such thing as this would be nonsense per definition. I joined the english Wiki just recently from the german Wiki. Just please you as an admin/mod(?), track/look at my IP and my initial editings, heck look at my e-mail adress (wait, do you give your e-mail to verify?). Anyways, you will then notice that I'm german, there shouldn't be many germans running around in the english Wiki pissing off others, non? Compare all of this to whoever you think I supposedly should be. Theres no reason for me to waste time with this, when I can have a reasonable discussion with 1 account. Yes the discussion was heated but in the end we calmed down and you even put edit in a request section, which is a great start. I'm hoping that you don't forget my editations. And thank you, I mean it. Mikka85 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I would also argue that Gero's comments should be included, it can simply be pointed out that although Gero accepts the overall theory, he also finds problems with the evidences used for that theory. Furthermore, I also believe that a justified reason for exclusion of Wheeler's work has not been provided. Unless someone wants to discuss this, I plan to re-include those portions. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Forcing a POV

This is the original long-standing lede back from January 2014, which managed to survive over 4½ years up-to August 2018. As can be seen, information of the two sentences that is unacceptable to recent reverters - i.e. ...some early Muslim scholars believed [Dhul-Qarnayn] to be a reference to a pre-Islamic monarch from Persia or south Arabia, with modern Muslim scholarship also leaning in favour of identifying him with Cyrus the Great - had been part of that long-standing lede.

From August 2018, some specific editors through a series of, arguably POV, edits have vigorously sought to delete any content that informs doubtful or non-universally accepted nature of the Alexander theory.

Series of potentially POV edits

Less obvious ones

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC) - Updated 2019-10-01.

Reliable sources and Muslim clerics

Wikipedia has WP:RULES which govern how editors should edit. (A sentence I took from User:Tgeorgescu - thanks TG :). One of the most important of these rules is that we use WP:RS. So how do we decide whether a given source is or is not reliable?
This is an article on an academic subject, and therefore we use academic sources. A few quotes from the WP:RS policy page will provide guidance:

  • Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
  • One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.

From this we can say that Wikipedia accepts sources that have been vetted by the scholarly community, peer-reviewed, published by sources that are well-regarded in the academic world, and are cited by other scholars.
Muslim clerics do not meet these criteria. (Nor, for that matter, do Christian priests or Jewish rabbis - we don't use the works on pastors and priests for articles on the Bible, or rabbis for the Old Testament). Such clerics have not been trained in modern academic methodology, have never held academic posts or published with academic presses or in academic journals, and are never cited in mainstream academic papers or books.
I should also point out that Wikipedia very much discourages edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I just find it acutely interesting how you're trying so very hard to not use the word "scholars" for these Muslim experts. First, you remove their designation, then use the word "teachers" and, what, it's Muslim clerics now? I suggest you go to the Wikipedia article pages of each of the scholars mentioned above and remove the term "scholar" from there, not to mention change the names of numerous pages such as Template:Islam scholars diagram, List of contemporary Muslim scholars of Islam, List of Islamic studies scholars etc. in addition to category pages too, like Category:Sunni Muslim scholars, Category:Quranic exegesis scholars etc.
  • Regarding WP:RELIABLE, there really isn't any way to convince you as long as you commit to your very own personal definition of who should be regarded as a scholar which obviously is in clear contradiction to Wikipedia as evidenced by the numerous pages mentioned in the previous paragraph.
  • Muslim clerics do not meet these criteria. — Muslim scholars not clerics or at least not just clerics. Your interpretation obviously contradicts the common opinion of Wikipedia contributors. If you're so confident of your position, first replace "scholars" with "clerics" in all the above-cited pages to prove that Wikipedia is aligned with you on this.
  • Nor, for that matter, do Christian priests or Jewish rabbis - we don't use the works on pastors and priests for articles on the Bible, or rabbis for the Old Testament... — The Resurrection of Jesus article quotes and cites the opinions of John R. Rice, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, N. T. Wright and Louis Ginzberg is cited in Hebrew Bible. According to the definition of "clerics" that you're employing, you should have a huge problem with them as well. You should correct those articles and remove those individuals' opinions too.
  • In any case, you obviously appear to be unaware of an important advice from Wikipedia contributors namely WP:RSE#Religious sources.... publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.
  • Furthermore, the point of contention is only what modern Muslim scholarship's opinion leans towards, regardless of whether it is historically justified or not. One doesn't need to be a scholar for this, even a less-known journalist should be reliable enough for this.
  • Regarding you warning me of edit warring, seriously? Are you trolling here? You, an anonymous editor, unilaterally changed content on the article lede. You deleted sourced content. You did not "try to reach a consensus" and "repeatedly chang[ed] content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree." You did not bother to discuss your changes on the talk page. You chose not to counter-argue any of the several points made above. This is the first time that your IP has inconvenienced itself to even respond on the talk page. And if all that wasn't enough, you even warned me against edit warring and getting blocked on my talk page. I believe I should be the one complaining against your behaviour instead of the other way around. Over the past month, I have repeatedly given blatant unilateral reverters - who cannot be bothered to go through the trouble of discussing or defending their edits - enough time to state their position on the talk page before reverting them.
-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be pretty obvious that I'm not a new user. Since you don't take my word on RS policy I'll take this to disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


On second thoughts, I'll take up Mathglot's summation of the discussion above regarding merging this article into Dhul-Qarnayn and deleting.

"Comment – What I'm seeing here, is a consensus to merge to Dhul-Qarnayn, while reserving certain sections, notably Islamic depictions of Alexander the Great, into an article, likely its own (new) article. Although this wasn't organized as an Rfc, I believe it can be semiformally closed with an outside assessment anyway, the way an Rfc is. I can't do it, since I'm involved, but I'll list this somewhere so we can request it be done. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk)
I've asked an admin (Doug Weller) if he'll consider actioning the earlier consensus on a merge and delete or whatever it was; plus I've informed Mathglot. Right now there shouldn't be any need for you or me to do anything, unless this leads nowhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't have the time or energy. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Muslim scholars representing Muslim opinion. -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran/Archive_1&oldid=1275001181"